zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Administrator-Only Forums
The following is what was I said in another forum of this same nature I made moments ago. Rather than let the discussion be split in two I'm linking the other page to here and posting what I said on that page bellow (Jazzi already copied her response it seems). Please leave further comments on this page.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:44, April 12, 2011 (UTC) From Other Forum: :I'd like to take a minute to voice my recommendation that we refrain from holding admin only discussions on ZP. Admin only votes are absolutely fine with me in cases that warrant it. However, this is a wiki, and the entire point is to allow anyone to be involved. Admins are obviously more trusted and important to have, but I see no reason that non-admin opinions cannot at least be voiced, even if they are not counted in a particular final decision. As has been said by various users including admins, admins are not supposed to be overly different, they are users who are trusted with a few more buttons. It says on our admin page that being an admin is "no big deal", in bold letters. I think all discussions should be opened to all users (really, when is the last time a forum got disrupted by a user who didn't know what they were doing? They generally don't even know how to get to a forum.). Though I've never seen an admin locked discussion before personally, I'm not trying to question whether there is a basis for making them; I'm specifically saying that we change that existing standard. Personally I have nothing in particular to contribute to the admin-only conversation that just went up or anything like that, I'm just pointing this out as a matter of principal.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:31, April 12, 2011 (UTC) Sorry to double post but I wanted to get the two pages same topic thing cleared up immediately without getting blocked by anymore edit conflicts. I don't understand the reason that rules for promotion should be an admin locked discussion. Admin locked vote makes sense. I think in some cases such as the block type discussions it would be appropriate to limit non-admin discussion to a separate comments section like Drakky was saying, in which people are advised not to post general "I agree" and only to raise new points. I honestly don't think even that should be used except in rare cases. It's enough that in decisions like this the admins are the only ones counted; to not allow other views or opinions in does not seem appropriate. Particularly with rule changes. We are all affected by such rules and should be allowed to talk about them. Also remember at times our admin activity can get very low. And I don't mean to be rude, and I don't want to disrespect the existing rules or any users, but straight up past examples of when this has been done are not going to cut it. I'm going to have to hear the reasoning behind them or why they were good. To be honest I'm no longer comfortable even with the existing admin only topic. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic guys, and definitely don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but I want to express this clearly. It's starting to branch out even more, and I'm displeased to say the least that all the people who are not admins but have still dedicated huge amounts of time and effort to this wiki are effectively being asked to keep their mouths shut about the very rules that govern them. I can't make that seem ok no matter how I look at it.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 00:13, April 13, 2011 (UTC) I see no problem in keeping all discussions open to everyone.—'Triforce' 14 16:46, April 13, 2011 (UTC) :In agreement with this. -'Minish Link' 17:26, April 13, 2011 (UTC) The thing is, if there is a way to make specific sections of a page admin-only, and others not, then I'd be all for it. However, it is only possible to protect an entire page, not parts of it. Also, the whole promotion thing has generally always been up to the admins, and I believe that stems from the time all administrators where also bureacrats, if that can help clarifying for you FD. More on topic, and I'm going to be blunt, this is not a big issue: A) These things don't happen all that often, B) Totally open discussions get messy and convulted and make things more of a hassle, C) Admin-only things are generally about wiki-maintence and are issues about things that need to work better, and D) Anybody can always create another forum to discuss the same topic, but it happens so infrequently that it is almost not worth it. Also, we wouldn't be very good admins if we never did what was best for the wiki. If there is a huge flaw that a non-admin believes they are missing they can either create a new forum or leave a message on admins talk page. Basically, I feel this is a non-issue and this has not caused any problems for the wiki, so I'm sticking with "don't fix what is not broken".'-- C2' / 23:07, April 13, 2011 (UTC) :I'm going to go ahead and say right now I'm moreso in agreement with this than I was with Triforce's comments; as CC said they're really really infrequent, and I know FD pointed out the fact that 'frequency has nothing to do with this', but it does. If these things have a rate of like 2 happening in a year then I don't see what the problem is; as CC also noted they're always about wiki-maintenance stuff. "Don't fix what isn't broken" indeed, but I assume we'll have some kind of vote for this. -'Minish Link' 17:45, April 14, 2011 (UTC) :If we wanted to make a specific non-admin section, we could simply place a header for it at the bottom. Forums get practically no traffic from people who wouldn't know that they're supposed to keep their comments in the appropriate sections. People are of course going to be reading over these forums, and if someone places a comment where they're not supposed to, it can be seen and moved. From what I've seen that would be a very infrequent thing. If admins aren't willing to deal with fixes like that when they see them, then they aren't doing a very good job being an admin. When this policy comes from, who made it up, etc., means nothing; why it exists is the only thing that is going to make anyone understand it. Specific point responses: :A) I don't see how the frequency is relevant to this discussion. :B) Perhaps, but I really doubt things will get that much more difficult to keep track of, if any, especially if we have specific non-admin sections. :C) Why does that have any bearing at all on whether or not admins/non-admins should be able to speak? :D) True, but I have to wonder if people are really going to pay attention to a secondary forum like that. People are also going to be reluctant to use those channels in the first place after being told not to talk about the subject. Also, a big thing that bothers me about this is the principal of the admin/non-admin distinction we are making, and also the negative feelings that people can get from that. If people feel that the admins are doing things like not letting them talk, enforcing rules that only exist in their heads (we're working on that, however slowly), they aren't going to want to be on the wiki. It's important for users to feel involved. As far as leaving it as is because it's worked before, we can't really know what else might have been brought up had we opened past discussions. We also wouldn't know if people were offput by it (unless someone like me goes and rants about it :p). To be perfectly honest, I was so furious about this that I had to stop, leave the computer for a while, and then come back just to write this response. I don't want other people to feel things like that and decide to just leave the wiki. It just doesn't seem right to shut people out of these types of discussions. We make people admins to use admin buttons, not to give them permission to make decisions without us. You don't need to fix something that isn't broken, sure, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make it better.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 00:08, April 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::Indeed I found it quite strange that I was the one that suggested the increase in promotion time yet wasn't allowed to take part in the discussion. The suggestion of having a non locked page with a section for Admins is a good idea. People probably will not make the mistake of commenting in the wrong section and if they do they can move it themselves. It could also be locked so only accounts older then four days can edit. That aside I also don't see why such discussions need to be admin only. Some of us have been here longer then many of the admins and I believe we have the right to give input to such things. Oni Link 17:34, April 14, 2011 (UTC) I personally don't think this forum is needed. Admin only things happen, well, almost never. The only times I've known of an admin only thing were discussing my block and discussing increasing promotion time. Personally, I like admin only discussions. Because as admins they know the ups and downs and ins and outs of the wiki more so than other users. We're just trying to move a horse that refuses to budge. And in my opinion, this forum just seems more like a compliant forum than a "Trying to include the whole wiki." The whole wiki shouldn't be included in things like this, because they hardly ever happen. And if someone wants to add a little input, they can message an admin with what they want to say and the admin could voice for them. But admin only things are needed, and should happen on site. --'BassJapas' 00:22, April 15, 2011 (UTC) FD, the fact of the matter is, if ANYBODY, admin or not, has an issue of the rules, they can always message a admin or start a forum. But really it is the admins who promote people(if the admin has b'crat permission, however all b'crats are admins) and admins are the only people who can block others, and other functions. Honestly though, I would feel that this might be a legitamit concern if this took place often, which it doesn't. They are only used for things that would apply to how admins run the wiki and carry out our duty to the wiki. Also, I would like to thank Oni for bringing it up and for his continued dedication to the wiki. I don't know if you have gotten a thanks for sticking around for as long as you have, and it is appreciated.'-- C2' / 00:36, April 15, 2011 (UTC) :Thought that does little to change my opinion it does make me feel very warm and fuzzy inside, thank you CC Oni Link 14:49, April 15, 2011 (UTC) I disagree with everything stated here. --AuronKaizer ' 19:14, April 15, 2011 (UTC) :Including the statements that are diametrically opposed to each other? -'Isdrak ''' 23:01, April 15, 2011 (UTC) ::Including his statement.—Triforce' ' 14''' 00:52, April 19, 2011 (UTC)